Bateman v. Ramsey

• Decision Date: 22 October 1889
• Citation: Bateman v. Ramsey, 12 S.W. 235 (Tex. 1889)
• Parties: BATEMAN <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> RAMSEY.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

12 S.W. 235

BATEMAN et al.

v.RAMSEY.

Supreme Court of Texas.

October 22, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Johnson county; J. M. HALL, Judge.

Poindexter & Padelford, for appellants.Crane & Ramsey, for appellee.

HENRY, J.

J. R. Ramsey, as plaintiff, instituted this suit against B. B. Ramsey on the ____ day of October, 1887, for money charged to have been loaned him as follows: April 1, 1885, $500; May 1, 1885, $55; November 1, 1886, $180, — upon which, the petition charges, defendant promised to pay interest at the rate of 1 per cent. per month.The indebtedness was not evidenced by writing.The plaintiff sued out a writ of attachment, which was levied on all the property owned by the defendant, consisting of a stock of merchandise and a horse and wagon.A few days after its seizure, the property was sold by the sheriff, by order of court, for $596.25; of which, part ($76.15) was retained by the officer to pay costs, and the balance ($520.10) was deposited with the clerk of the court to abide the result of the suit.The defendant did not appear or answer.Appellants intervened in the suit, contesting the correctness of plaintiff's debt, and charging collusion and fraud between plaintiff and defendant for the purpose of cheating intervenors and other creditors of defendant.Judgment was rendered for plaintiff for the sum of $889.23, and foreclosing the attachment, from which the intervenors appeal.It was admitted that the defendant was insolvent.Plaintiff was the father of defendant, who was an unmarried man, and boarded with his father.Plaintiff usually worked for defendant about his store for small wages.Intervenors proved that they had recovered judgments in the county and justice's courts foreclosing their second and third levies of attachment on the same property that was levied on by plaintiff's writ, subject to plaintiff's writ.Intervenors' debts amounted to $577.35, besides costs.The property, when levied on, was found to be worth $1,050.The record before us does not contain the affidavit, or show the grounds upon which the attachment was sued out.The amount of plaintiff's debt was contested by the intervenors.The evidence with regard to it is vague and unsatisfactory.Without undertaking to analyze it, we will say that we are not able, from any view of the evidence, to see how it was made to amount to as much as the judgment was rendered for.It seems clear that one item — a note amounting to $180 — was counted twice.As the case will be reversed, and the evidence of the amount of the debt may be made more satisfactory on another trial, we do not think it necessary to comment further on this aspect of the case.

With regard to his causes and motives for suing out the writ of attachment, plaintiff testified that it was his opinion that the defendant did not convert any of his property into money; that defendant paid his debts as fast as he could, with the money that he sold his goods for; that he was not afraid defendant would defraud him if he was let alone, but plaintiff knew that he owed other debts, which he was paying off, and because he was doing that, and was not paying him, he sued out his writ of attachment; that he sued out the attachment because he found he could not otherwise collect his debt.Plaintiff testified that before he sued out his writ of attachment he talked to defendant about doing so, more than once.As we have said, the record before us fails to...